Opinion of The Amazing Atheist

[ingemann]

I'm not sure why I or anybody else here should have a opinion of a complete non-entity even by the low standards of internet famous. Yes I know who he is and saw a few videos by him some years ago. But asking people's opinion of him is like asking about Bushie, Opebo and BRTD on another internet board than Atlas.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

what's so amazing about him?

[afleitch]

A poll on this? Again?

[traininthedistance]

Dude, Marokai, even Hockeydude can tell this guy's a chode.

This is really not the hill you want to die on.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Dude, Marokai, even Hockeydude can tell this guy's a chode.

This is really not the hill you want to die on.

When did I deny that he's a chode? Depicting me as furiously running defense for him and "dying on this hill" is a fairly disingenuous depiction of my posts in this thread; though this has never stopped you before. Dude's a dick, I just enjoy his show.

[afleitch]

Dude, Marokai, even Hockeydude can tell this guy's a chode.

This is really not the hill you want to die on.

When did I deny that he's a chode? Depicting me as furiously running defense for him and "dying on this hill" is a fairly disingenuous depiction of my posts in this thread; though this has never stopped you before. Dude's a dick, I just enjoy his show.

He's the only atheist that certain posters can think of so they keep running posts about him (but 'omgjesuswonderful'), thinking anyone really gives a sh-t. Terry Pratchett died and wrote some of the most eloquent statements of humanism or non-belief you can find, but you'll never find anyone ever put him and his ethical system to a vote. No; you'll get TheAmazingAtheist, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins on a perpetual loop.

[traininthedistance]

Dude, Marokai, even Hockeydude can tell this guy's a chode.

This is really not the hill you want to die on.

When did I deny that he's a chode? Depicting me as furiously running defense for him and "dying on this hill" is a fairly disingenuous depiction of my posts in this thread; though this has never stopped you before. Dude's a dick, I just enjoy his show.

Please, you were obviously running defense for him (we can quibble over the semantics of "furiously"– your word, not mine, mind– but that's a strawman), what you've just said is fair as far as it goes but is also clearly a backpedal. As for disingenuous, I'd take a look at your own characterizations of feminism (and seeming willingness to always give their critics the benefit of the doubt, but never vice versa) first before you start throwing around accusations.

Also, nice sig.  I still don't have the time to properly respond, IRL is busy at the moment, but fine, at some point I'll necro that thread and give it the thorough response it apparently needs.

He's the only atheist that certain posters can think of so they keep running posts about him (but 'omgjesuswonderful'), thinking anyone really gives a sh-t. Terry Pratchett died and wrote some of the most eloquent statements of humanism or non-belief you can find, but you'll never find anyone ever put him and his ethical system to a vote. No; you'll get TheAmazingAtheist, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins on a perpetual loop.

Uh, no?  Of course I know Pratchett and he is wonderful, as are many other atheists. There's a certain subset of folks who think their "so edgy" atheism gives them license to be sexists and bigots and all-around assholes, and that is a trend which is worth countering.  My impression is that it's a trend that Pratchett himself would wish to counter, in fact!  It's a total strawman to say that the folks who criticize these people do so because of religion, many of them are humanists themselves and do so out of deeply humanist impulses.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'm actually quite unfamiliar with him. The only video of his I've seen is one where he ranted about how the Trix commercials are unfair for continuing to not let the rabbit have any Trix.

So what is so awful about him? I'm curious now.

edit: oh yeah I just saw evergreen's post now. Oh wow...yeah pretty obvious.

[afleitch]

Uh, no?  Of course I know Pratchett and he is wonderful, as are many other atheists. There's a certain subset of folks who think their "so edgy" atheism gives them license to be sexists and bigots and all-around assholes, and that is a trend which is worth countering.  My impression is that it's a trend that Pratchett himself would wish to counter, in fact!  It's a total strawman to say that the folks who criticize these people do so because of religion, many of them are humanists themselves and do so out of deeply humanist impulses.

What point did you think I was making when I wrote that? I didn't know who on earth the 'Amazing Atheist' was until he kept being mentioned on here as either a straw man or straw poll. People plucking him out of their ass as opposed to countless thousands of other people who actually matter, time after time again in here is boring as f-ck.

[Mr. Smith]

Dude, Marokai, even Hockeydude can tell this guy's a chode.

This is really not the hill you want to die on.

When did I deny that he's a chode? Depicting me as furiously running defense for him and "dying on this hill" is a fairly disingenuous depiction of my posts in this thread; though this has never stopped you before. Dude's a dick, I just enjoy his show.

He's the only atheist that certain posters can think of so they keep running posts about him (but 'omgjesuswonderful'), thinking anyone really gives a sh-t. Terry Pratchett died and wrote some of the most eloquent statements of humanism or non-belief you can find, but you'll never find anyone ever put him and his ethical system to a vote. No; you'll get TheAmazingAtheist, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins on a perpetual loop.

Then you put one up to discuss them, what's stopping you?

Or you could take the fact that they (Practchett's ethics) haven't been put up to a vote as a widespread token of respect for his beliefs and/or character.

Or more cynically the great luck you have that there isn't anyone here  ready to take the name in vain for their own purposes.

People accentuate the negative and controversial of any belief systems, or they twist the positive to their own ends.

The fact that no one's put up a Hipster!Sagan vs Hamm or TrippyFREAKINGAWESOMEMUSTACHE! Tyson vs Bushie and they are left as they are while we've had two INSERTLABELHERE! Jesus vs Lucifer polls...does that have no significance at all?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Having read a bit more about this guy, I'm surprised I haven't heard more about him until now. He's exactly the type of person people in liberal Christian circles love to cite as an example of how atheism does not lead one to be progressive, like Ayn Rand (who is basically the liberal Christian Antichrist).

[Marokai Backbeat]

Please, you were obviously running defense for him (we can quibble over the semantics of "furiously"– your word, not mine, mind– but that's a strawman), what you've just said is fair as far as it goes but is also clearly a backpedal. As for disingenuous, I'd take a look at your own characterizations of feminism (and seeming willingness to always give their critics the benefit of the doubt, but never vice versa) first before you start throwing around accusations.

Also, nice sig.  I still don't have the time to properly respond, IRL is busy at the moment, but fine, at some point I'll necro that thread and give it the thorough response it apparently needs.

I was defending him insofar as I was giving my opinion on what I felt was ignorance about him (which continued, you know; he lives in Ohio, not Louisiania as one poster said, and BRTD accused him of being a Randian, which is completely off base and once again something you can only know by not watching anything about him) but I feel no personal attachment toward the guy. I'm a pedant who gets easily animated over small things, if anything. I do the same thing whenever there's a thread about Bill Maher, actually. When you say 'running defense' I think of Libertas' obsessive paragraphs-long screeds to every tiny thing ever said about him. And saying that he's a dick isn't a backpedal if I've always thought that.

It isn't so much that I insist on giving people the benefit of the doubt for biased reasons, but merely think if you're going to hate on someone you should have a basic amount of knowledge about what they've actually done themselves that's worth disliking. You seem to have some sort of really f**ked up perception of me; I'm interested in these topics because they fascinate me and I like reading about them, not because I'm in this to hate on people, so it does get me upset when someone like Beet implies that of course I would like/be a rape apologist, because I... criticized statistics on wage gaps? What an outrageous drive-by character assassination. Arguably s**tposting. But I make dishonest characterizations?

And if you want to know the reasoning behind that quote in my sig, it wasn't to bait you into responding, it was because it reminded me of something Madeleine said awhile back:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You "disagree in ways that are strong but hard to coherently articulate" because you disagree in ways that are emotional and based on a slew of unfalsifiable claims, many of which you have already concluded were true before you ever tried forming the argument in the first place. This is largely why most of your disagreements with me that you did bother posting were nitpicks, clearly separate from the thrust of my point, disagreements that invented things I didn't say out of thin air, or drumming outrage over my use of certain terms (like my use of "clean cut" in reference to a fictional scenario, instead of directly responding to the thought experiment, which you basically just ignored).

For me, the idea of "disagreeing strongly but being unable to articulate why" is a kind of terrifying notion (as it was for Madeleine), because that could potentially mean I've either lost the ability to substantively demonstrate the validity of my beliefs and are no longer keeping my thoughts grounded, or that my beliefs can no longer actually be logically demonstrated in real terms to begin with. I would humbly suggest to you the idea that it might be worth reflecting on.

If you ever do return to that topic (which, seriously, is not that big of a deal, dude) I hope you do so with an interest in actually having a genuine give and take on what I was saying, instead of just trying to make a flashy coup-de-grâce. Because I actually really like reading discussions on those topics when all parties involved are being honest with each other, and I don't think we really disagree on much at all when it comes to the substantive things we need to do for women in society, or the things that can at least be clearly demonstrated to exist.

[they don't love you like i love you]

What? I never said he was a Randian. What I said is that he's similar to Rand in that he's the type of person some people in liberal Christian circles like to hold up as an example of what atheism leads to or as proof that atheism isn't inherently progressive.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Uh, no?  Of course I know Pratchett and he is wonderful, as are many other atheists. There's a certain subset of folks who think their "so edgy" atheism gives them license to be sexists and bigots and all-around assholes, and that is a trend which is worth countering.  My impression is that it's a trend that Pratchett himself would wish to counter, in fact!  It's a total strawman to say that the folks who criticize these people do so because of religion, many of them are humanists themselves and do so out of deeply humanist impulses.

What point did you think I was making when I wrote that? I didn't know who on earth the 'Amazing Atheist' was until he kept being mentioned on here as either a straw man or straw poll. People plucking him out of their ass as opposed to countless thousands of other people who actually matter, time after time again in here is boring as f-ck.

welcome to the Internet.

Who here is trying to paint him as descriptive or archetypal of all atheists?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Not to mention how is he frequently brought up? This is the first time I can recall him being mentioned here. Not saying it's the first time but if he's a frequent hot topic I would remember I'm sure.

[afleitch]

He was polled last year and the year before. Do a quick forum search. I'm baffled as to why people obsess over him on here whenever someone mentions him.

[they don't love you like i love you]

So one poll a year on him? Very obsessive. This guy is on the level of Andrew Cuomo to the forum.